Sometimes unpleasant, but interesting

The Solonik Prize has long been known and respected in the community of artists who value it for transparency and honesty. But in 2013, one of the co -founders of the award, artist Anton Litvin, had ethical difficulties in compiling a list of 101, which the members of the organizing committee themselves form and form. Anton Litvin believes that a clear border founded on the political convictions of recent years has appeared inside the art community. Vera Roiter and Anna Luneva, who are also members of the Organizing Committee of the Prize, had their own reasons not to conduct a bonus in 2013. During the round table, the participants of the Organizing Committee of the "Companion" explain their individual position and tell why the award was not held in the past year. One of the nominees of the "Companion" is participated in the conversation - the artist Valery Chest, as well as the art critic and curator Faina Balakhovskaya.

Anton Litvin: The history of the Anterlik Award begins in 2005, when I accidentally ended up at the GTC at a press conference on the establishment of the new State Prize "Innovation". And, sitting in the hall, I clearly realized that another institutional story appeared. How long will she live, whether it was not for a long time - at that time it was unknown, but there was immediately the feeling that it was a rather painful story, it would hardly revive the artistic process and preserve the drive that existed then and, it seems to me, always necessary for artists. And I literally have it, not because I am smart or I want to pull the blanket on myself, the idea of ​​a prize was born that would be absolutely inside the art community, it would be born there and would be made following the example of a football award, when the players are interviewed, asked to name three names of their colleagues and stupidly summarize the results. It seemed to me that there is probably no more important assessment of his work, talent or something else for the football player than from colleagues. It also seemed to me that it would be interesting to artists, because it was one thing to get a bonus for incomprehensible culuar reasons, merits, for some “confessions” and completely different - to have a completely transparent sheet with published voting results and really be possible if not proud of yourself, then at least feel confident, honestly and know your friends in person, which is important.

The award must have some kind of prize fund, of course, symbolic.

I began to think on this topic, and since we at that moment talked very tightly and was friends with Olga Lopukhova -this was also connected with the Venetian Biennale, and with the “art shooting”-for me it was a completely natural step to offer her a partnership, cooperation, to offer to do this project with me, although her confront , sorry for the expression, her doubts consisted with the fact that, if, if the premium of artistic Intra -collection, people of other professions, even related ones, are inappropriate here. It seemed to me that this is cunning and coquetry: Olya Lopukhova was famous for her authority, uncompromising and again transparency, which was very important for the award, for her renom and love for artists ...

Faina Balakhovskaya: ... which is not often found in people of related professions.

Litvin: Something shot me out of pathos speech. When we invented the logo, we received copyright certificates for the name “Solonnik”, we already acted together, and, of course, except for my primary intention as an artist, that such a bonus was needed, everything else was made together, which, in fact, confirms certificate No. 9669 of February 16, 2006. In 2006, the first prize was awarded. For a long time with Olya we discussed how she should look, what her format, frequency and so on should have, and in the end, after long disputes, we agreed that it should be 101 artist. I offered 100, but Olya, as a person with unexpected decisions, suggested 101, to the question "Why?" She replied that it would be more acute and more noticeable. The figure will cling, and this, in fact, will be intrigue. We agreed that we determine the 101 artists with its strong -willed solution and taste instinct, ask them to name the three names of artists, in their opinion, most vividly represented last year, and, ideally, 303 named minus, stupidly summarize the results and we get laureates, which, it is clear, always had several, four, five, because some had the same The result, but nevertheless we focused on the upper three. And one important point: the award must have some kind of prize fund, of course, symbolic. And since art at that moment was always sold not for rubles, but rather for dollars, an amount adequate to the number of participants has appeared - $ 101. And at first it was issued in banks with coins of one dollar, and then they began to issue them in a diploma.

Disappointment did not arise from the user, but from the back, from the organizers.

The purpose of our meeting today is to discuss the situation that has developed around the “ally”, namely: this year it was decided not to give the prize. Adopted by the organizing committee, which currently includes me, Anton Litvina, the successor of Olga Lopukhova - Vera Roiter and joined us (in the good sense of the word) activist of the artistic process Anya Luneva.

Now we will convey the word to Faina, our friend, a friend of prizes and, moreover, Olga’s close friend.

Balakhovskaya: I did not quite understand why you made such a decision. The prize and its results were always interesting to me. We generally have a bad thing with sociology, and the award proposed invaluable sociological material, which annually updated and brought to some thoughts about a community that is in no way designed, we have no trade unions, rather weak gallery system and the press. It seemed to me that it was interesting as the formula of the community, some of its reflection. Therefore, I did not quite understand what your disappointment is connected with.

Vera Roiter: In the fields I want to notice that you look at the prize to some extent from the user - a person, on the one hand, included in this process, but on the other hand, a person who is pleasant and clear when he sees this cut.

Balakhovskaya: Sometimes unpleasant, but interesting.

Roiter: Yes, you perceive it as an event. As I understand it, let them correct me - although several different arguments (I and I and I have, probably, they are less clearly articulated than that of Anton), disappointment did not arise from the user, but from the back of the organizers.

Litvin: On the one hand, we came to this almost simultaneously, on the other hand, for everyone, as I said at the beginning, different motives. This decision was ripened in the fall, precisely because, in my opinion, the Award “Solonnik”, if we handed it away this year, would not correspond to the declared status. Even the name itself suggests that this award is primarily designed to consolidate, unite and strengthen the community, despite the fact that we are all as artists - direct competitors and do not have to be friends with everyone and even greet all, but nevertheless we participate in all projects and, by and large, we solve one task - to develop the actual culture, and relevant art of the country. And in this sense, it seemed to me that the goal of the “ally” is precisely uniting and aimed at the common cause. The last two years, as I wrote in an introductory text that my colleagues have not allowed me to publish, I believe that the award began to lose the cleanliness and task for which it was created. It became clear to me last year, after the award of the Pussy Riot Award, because it was such an obvious victory that we began to discuss it even before the vote.

Balakhovskaya: Why is it obvious? They could vote like that, could be different.

Valery Cheli: True, I voted at that time not for Pussy Riot , but it doesn’t matter. Luneva called me and asked who I vote for, they say, let's go faster. And Pussy Riot was not there. At the same time, I understood that if I did not vote for Pussy Riot , I would be the last nits.

Litvin: But not so many people voted for them, only 19.

Balakhovskaya: And when they read out on stage, who voted for Pussy Riot , it was actually surprising for me, because not young artists, not the peasy riots : almost all the voices cast for adult artists voted for them.

Check: Well, oldskul, yes.

Balakhovskaya: This was interesting, it was not at all obvious.

Roiter: The problem that Valera puts is clear to me, because I also had the feeling that some people told me first candidates, then they remembered the last news reasons, and changed their decision. And it was important and/or fashionable to vote like this.

Balakhovskaya: It seemed to me that this victory was not guaranteed for a very simple reason: the action itself and all its nominations to previous bonuses caused a rather contradictory reaction. Many people said that yes, everything is politically for them, but this is not an art; Many people thought so.

At the same time, I understood that if I did not vote for Pussy Riot, I would be the last nits.

Litvin: I was sure that Pussy Riot would win, so there were small steps that were related to the organization of the award. We provided for this option with a high degree of probability, which before there was never before, usually we did not know who would be in the list of laureates until the last moment. I had the feeling that the prize in the conditions of politicization of society was becoming engaged. The engaged not in the sense that someone orders and buys results and that it is beneficial to someone, but as they say, self -aned. There is a result that is predictable, and then the bonus loses its meaning. In my opinion, the art community has split with terrible force in the last two years in relation to political, social and other phenomena, now also foreign. The attitude to various problems went beyond the limits of discussions and external media sources, caused if not personal conflicts, then stress. I see this with concrete examples. And the Solonnik Award does not correspond to the relations that arise among artists. And since I myself participate in the formation of this list 101, I felt ethical awkwardness for its compilation in the current year, because by willy, not the artistic merits of a person will be weeded there, but at least his political views, but at a maximum-his speeches, his statements, his actions. And in this regard, I voiced this Anya with faith, because I do not feel ethically have the right to participate in the compilation of the list 101, and since we did not provide another mechanism, I proposed not to conduct a bonus this year. Ani has other motives with faith.

Check: I can say as an artist who somehow participated in this award. From the very beginning, if you remember, of course, the very first prize I was wildly offended: I was not on the 2006 list. I thought: bl ***, not x ** myself, I'm a celestial, and who is Anton Litvin?

Litvin: But you received four votes in 2012.

Check: I remember that I read the list 101 and thought: wait, where is Galkina, where is it? And there was some kind of dude that no one knew, a dude with a camera. I thought: who made this list, what the hell are these people? I don’t know whether it was taken into account or not, some third-party voices, but I thought that it shouldn’t be: in fact, this is a Hamburg account, we are going to, those who understand who do, no Bayas Pipple. Second: I was wildly angry that the prize is purely symbolic money, what the hell? The prize should be ten thousand euros, as an “innovation” or a Kandinsky Prize now. I understand that you, Anton Litvin, will say to me: “Are you e **? Where will I get so much money? " Olya Lopukhova could tell me the same. I just talked with her and I remember the last conversation, I even remember what I was dressed then. I had the first child, I walked with him in the park, I was wearing a black coat, a red scarf and a hat. I understand that if Anton Litvin, Olga Lopukhova and someone else organize the bonus, then the money will be symbolic, but then why is it called a prize? I thought a lot about this and recently realized that in Moscow and in general, two things should be banned-schools and prizes: “innovation”, Kandinsky Prize and so on, because all this is some kind of gallest, because wildly Bayas is wildly biased. One votes for his own, the other for his own, the third for the one who was exhibited, etc. Is this, objectivity, bl ***, or what? Anton makes an objective list, but in fact he is not objective damn. That's why everyone vote for Zhilyaev? Because his roots vote for him. And Pussy Riot turned out to be the only honest choice and the only honest victory.

Balakhovskaya: But it is also important that the art community distinguishes the leaders - Osmolovsky, Zhilyaev, and Vytaka.

Roiter: I will have a lot of comments now, let's start from the end. Question about objectivity. What is it? This is my philosophical faculty apparently playing me, but nevertheless, the factors will always be influencing. Any bonus depends on how much it is deleted by the terms from any exhibition (it can brightly sound now, but in a month no one will remember it) what is happening, etc. In this case, we have objectivity due to the fact that we make a list of 101 artists, and this year I again did not allow myself to do this. I don’t remember who I said, probably, with Valentin Dyakonov that we somehow “ended with gas from the award”, what would we do with it. He advised, let everyone who want to vote, and everyone who wants to vote will take money away, and there will be just one hundred and one dollar, but a normal amount. But a list of 101 artists arose, because after all, the organizers are not a jury, they do not completely affect the result, but in this way we, specifically, I personally take responsibility for the list of people who participate in the artistic process and know what is happening on the stage not by hearsing, not through the fifth hands. Anton has two conflicting phrases about the fact that artistic or non -artistic ... But what is the "Companion" award? How is it written there? "A tested, reliable combat comrade, as well as in general, a comrade in struggle and action." Here we are trying to somehow observe harmony and perhaps we do not fully catch, what is the proportion of artistic and non-artistic, but we do not say that we will only choose and do not say to artists to vote by artists. When they ask me “and“ ally ”is in what sense,?” I say “but how do you understand the word“ ally ”, what is“ ally ”for you? For you, this is a person who helped you to score nails, or the artist who inspired you to a new job? ” That is, this is blurred, but blurring seems so ambivalent to me, and it also has its advantages.

There is a result that is predictable, and then the bonus loses its meaning.

Balakhovskaya: Vera, then say: why were you against holding a prize this year?

Roiter: I have an argument, perhaps not so clearly formulated, because, unlike Anton, who even brought our certificate of registration, I somehow did not really prepare. But I personally are not sure that there are 101 artists who were really active this year, and for me the qualifications are activity and participation. I have problems here with a complex of artistic statement and inclusion in the process. The artist N opened a small personal exhibition. The exhibition was not masterpiece, but sounded. Probably sounded only because the artist did not expose anything for a long time. And the question of inclusion in the process arises. Here, there is an exhibition, not the worst. And a person here, associated directly with contemporary art. But is his voice relevant if he fell out of this “boiler” for a long time? Did he see what happened and is happening around? And vice versa, a person seems to do something, but very quietly, and you understand that you are not encountering him anywhere, he is not present in any way. And it would be interesting to know his opinion, but usually serves: "I do not know what is happening, I am doing quietly with myself."

Litvin: But this can turn into a complaint to you that you go little, you meet little, read little, you are not much interested.

Balakhovskaya: Anton has one main problem for you and Anton is a list of a list and objectivity criteria, the very methodology of compiling a list and the authority of inclusion/non-inclusion of some people in it. And at Ani?

Анна Лунева: Мне как раз кажется, что список — это не проблема, я просто думаю, что премия, несмотря на все, художественная. И если бы мы делали премию в этом году, то многие бы называли в голосовании «узников Болотной», например.

Ройтер: Эта опасность существовала бы, может быть не на 90%, потому что у нас в голосах появлялись очень странные персонажи: «Путин со стерхами» или пострадавшие люди, пострадавшие от режима, но при этом совершенно не из художественной среды.

Балаховская: Опять же, на это было бы очень интересно посмотреть, мы говорим в умозрительной форме, потому что, к сожалению, премию не проводили.

Лунева: На мой взгляд, это касается авторитета премии: если среди номинантов появляется Путин со стерхами, то это прямой путь к деградации.

Балаховская: Так устроена природа, мы одновременно деградируем, одновременно развиваемся, неизбежный процесс. Надо как-то принимать и тот, и другой — как жизнь.

Ройтер: Мне кажется, «Путин со стерхами» появляется еще из-за некоторой скуки голосующих. У нас они меняются, но не полностью, есть люди, которые голосуют из года в год. И обычно все-таки есть сформировавшийся круг людей. Сколько можно голосовать за трех друзей, Петю, Васю и Колю, а давайте мы как-нибудь выпендримся, простите за выражение. Это то, что является реальной проблемой премии, причем многих премий. Мы думаем о том, что ежегодность премии это как-то сложно.

Если среди номинантов появляется Путин со стерхами, то это прямой путь к деградации.

Литвин: Проблема в том, что мы, во-первых, в растерянности из-за ответственности за выбор этих 101, во-вторых, является ли это проблемой механизма премии или это наша личная трудность. Грубо говоря, может, если будем не мы, а кто-то другой предъявлять этот список, то тогда все заживет опять.

Чтак: В итоге этот процесс не превратился в движение, он сам по себе не будет существовать, его жизнь продолжаешь ты, Вера, Аня или кто-либо другой. И он превращается во что-то, когда приходят, говорят: «Давайте я вам дам пятьдесят тысяч, сделаете наконец-то классную премию» — но этого не происходит. Это одна из проблем, которые я вижу: она не развивается, не растет дальше. А способ выбора участников списка у меня сомнений не вызывает.

Ройтер: Для меня путь, что нам не хватает энергии, а тут приходит богатый дядя с деньгами и дает их нам, не работает.

Литвин: Небольшое дополнение для Валеры: меня Вера с Аней всегда били по рукам, когда я пытался провести премию в каком-то нехудожественном пространстве, в ресторане или отеле. А уж если премия будет выдавать деньги какого-то большого дяди, она сразу станет им неинтересной. Это же вопрос не денег, а ситуации.

Чтак: Я только из жалости участвую в этой премии, потому что Антон лично звонит и просит: «Валера, проголосуй, пожалуйста». Никакого роста в этом смысле нет.

Ройтер: Я так и не поняла, почему ты динамику приравниваешь к деньгам.

Литвин: Отлично, динамика у «Инновации» и Кандинского, нам не избежать сравнения с нашими друзьями, они же конкуренты.

Чтак: Дело в том, что премия художественной вообще не может быть. Вот в кино — там понятно: лучший режиссер, лучшая лента 90 минут. Но все, что там делают, предвзято.

Литвин: По уставу премии, у нас оценивается не самый яркий проект, а художник. Он может вообще ничего не делать в течение года, но быть идеологом какого-то движения и иметь 100 друзей.

Чтак: Единственной ценностью для меня в этой премии был какой-то дух времени, как вот некий крен в политику, некий крен в более философские вещи. Никто до Pussy Riot из победителей не набрал 19 голосов.

Балаховская: То есть Pussy Riot еще и премию убили?

Чтак: Может быть. Это тоже важный момент, потому что Pussy Riot — это очень хороший, такой странный камень, краеугольный...

Балаховская: ...о который мало кто не споткнулся.

Чтак: Есть такое понятие, как краеугольный камень: это понятие древней архитектуры, когда строят здание из камней, а потом самый непонятный, самый странный камень устанавливается сверху — и все упирается в него. И Pussy Riot стали такой линией, когда люди начали обматываться колючей проволокой на площади, участвовать в акциях, попадать в тюрьму и т.д. И эта премия Pussy Riot стала некой ватерлинией, потому что музыка — говно, на постановку больно смотреть, кроме фотографий, где они стоят на амвоне, — вот это красиво. Заявления — тупорылее не придумаешь, феминистические и на плохом английском, но при этом никто не добивался такого успеха в России и вообще в мире.